Book by C.I.A. Officer Says U.S. Is Losing Fight Against Terror

NY Times ^ | June 23, 2004 | DOUGLAS JEHL

[Valin]

Thank you. You put much better than I was going to.

[A Simple Soldier]

Yes. This book will be more politicized than his first book, so expect it to continue to appear within the big media.

To your tin foil question, I doubt he is fabricating, but he could certainly be exaggerating his importance and background.

[Joe Hadenuf]

President Bush is no Sonny Corleone, and neither is his staff. Personally, I stopped second guessing him after he said he thought the AW ban was good, only to then let it die. Time and again, he seems to let conservatism down, we all berate him and get depressed, yet in the end, conservative values win.

WTF are you talking about? We have an endless conga-line of millions entering this country illegally from God knows where, turning this country into a third world pit, while Bush and the rest of DC stand in stone silence. Conservative values? You've been duped.

[Criminal Number 18F]

get this guy out as incompetent.

Doesn't happen. This guy is a headquarters guy. The Agency will always can a field guy on the strength of rumor or innuendo, but I don't think any HQ dweller ever got fired for incompetence.

If they did, there would be a boatload of empty desks.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Old Professer]

Violence is the tool used to instill fear which is the essence of terrorism by definition; in that sense, we are losing.

[wildbill]

I think this intelligence officer may be blinded because of his narrow focus on Ben Laden.

The Bush approach to Islamic radicalism has been three-pronged:

1. Deny we are in a religious war in order to undermine the radicals and prevent more moderates from moving over to them.

2. A tactical strategy to go into Afghanistan and destroy the Al Queda camps and the Taliban.

3. A strategic plan to take Iraq (largest and most modern army in the Arab world) away from Saddam which gives two advantages: a. prevent terrorists and Saddam from teaming up b. demonstrating to the Arab leaders what can happen when the U.S. is determined, ensuring fear-driven cooperation from Pakistan to Libya. c. a wedge into the Middle East.

Maybe Mr. Anonymous ought to look at a larger picture.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I guess the questions are whether the cost of "sealing" the border would yield results which could not be far greater had the resources been spent elsewhere

Yield results? What kind of double talk is that? Are we not a sovereign nation, a nation of laws?

You know all those 40 foot commerical trailers they find with 200 illegals packed into them? One of these days, there is going to be one parked in downtown Fort Worth Texas, except the load will a bit more interesting.

Can you imagine a dirty bomb going off, rendering most of a major city contaminated for 200 years, killing thousands? If that happens, I'll come back and ask you about "yielding results".

[hgro]

Any person that doesn't have the balls to use his own name when writing a book knocking the government should be ignored. He can assumed to be a coward and a liar.

[mtbopfuyn]

"U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious," the officer writes. "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency — not criminality or terrorism — and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces."

Gotta agree with him on that point. We've not made a dent and it'll be a long and uphill struggle before we do, if we do. We're already outnumbered and are more so every day. They've already moved in and set up house, home, and cell next door. Our only advantage is our technology but it's being sold out to every Tom, Dick, and Omar who has a few coins in his pocket.

[montag813]

Surely one of this Arab ass-kissing skunk's co-workers knows who he is so he can be outed and fired (and perhaps prosecuted) after the election. This is disgusting. "War on Islam" my ass. I WISH it were so.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Any person that doesn't have the balls to use his own name when writing a book knocking the government should be ignored. He can assumed to be a coward and a liar.

Bull sh*t.

It could *also* mean the book is completely credible and truthful, which is *why* it's anonymous. Some of the best informants ever have remained anonymous.